Constitutive programmed death ligand 1 expression protects gastric G-cells from Helicobacter pylori–induced inflammation

INTRODUCTION: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a premalignant lesion, highly associated with Helicobacter pylori infection. Previous studies have shown that H. pylori is able to induce the expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1), an inhibitory immune modulator, in gastric cells. Our aim was to investigate whether tissues from GIM patients may exploit PD‐L1 expression upon H. pylori infection to evade immunosurveillance. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry was performed for PD‐L1 and enteroendocrine markers somatostatin and gastrin on samples derived from a cohort of patients with known GIM, both before and after H. pylori eradication. To determine the identity of any observed PD‐L1‐positive cells, we performed multiplex immunofluorescent staining and analysis of single‐cell sequencing data. RESULTS: GIM tissue was rarely positive for PD‐L1. In normal glands from GIM patients, PD‐L1 was mainly expressed by gastrin‐positive G‐cells. While the D‐cell and G‐cell compartments were both diminished 2‐fold (p = .015 and p = .01, respectively) during H. pylori infection in the normal antral tissue of GIM patients, they were restored 1 year after eradication. The total number of PD‐L1‐positive cells was not affected by H. pylori, but the percentage of PD‐L1‐positive G‐cells was 30% higher in infected subjects (p = .011), suggesting that these cells are preferentially rescued from destruction. CONCLUSIONS: Antral G‐cells frequently express PD‐L1 during homeostasis. G‐cells seem to be protected from H. pylori‐induced immune destruction by PD‐L1 expression. GIM itself does not express PD‐L1 and is unlikely to escape immunosurveillance via expression of PD‐L1

The use of non-invasive stool tests for verification of Helicobacter pylori eradication and clarithromycin resistance

Background: Clarithromycin resistance of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) represents a major challenge in eradication therapy. In this study, we assessed if non-invasive stool tests can be used to verify successful H. pylori eradication and determine clarithromycin resistance. Materials and methods:In this prospective study, patients undergoing urea breath testing (UBT) for confirmation of H. pylori eradication were asked to collect the stool as both a dry fecal sample and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Stool H. pylori antigen testing (SAT) was performed on these samples and assessed for its accuracy in eradication verification. Type and duration of antibiotic treatment were retrospectively collected from patient records and compared with clarithromycin resistance determined by PCR of stool samples. Results: H. pylori eradication information was available for a total of 145 patients (42.7% male, median age: 51.2). Successful eradication was achieved in 68.1% of patients. SAT on FIT samples had similar accuracy for eradication assessment compared to dry fecal samples, 72.1% [95% CI 61.4–81.2] versus 72.2% [95% CI 60.9–81.7]. Clarithromycin resistance rate was 13.4%. Conclusion: H. pylori antigen testing on FIT stool samples to verify H. pylori eradication is feasible and has similar accuracy as H. pylori antigen testing on dry stool samples. Dry stool, but not FIT, was suitable for non-invasive identification of H. pylori clarithromycin resistance by rt-PCR personalizing antibiotic treatment strategies without the need for invasive diagnostics is desirable, as the cure rate of first-line empirical H. pylori treatment remains low.</p

Increased Prevalence of Autoimmune Gastritis in Patients with a Gastric Precancerous Lesion

Background: Autoimmune gastritis (AIG), characterized with the presence of anti-parietal-cell antibodies (APCA), is a risk factor for gastric cancer. However, AIG may go underdiagnosed, especially in the case of H. pylori infection and the presence of gastric precancerous lesions (GPL), due to the ambiguous pathology and delayed symptom onset. Aim: Investigate the prevalence and characteristics of AIG in GPL patients. Methods:Prevalence of AIG was determined with the presence of APCA in patients with GPL (n = 256) and the control group (n = 70). Pathological characteristics and levels of gastrin 17 (G17), pepsinogen (PG) I and II and anti-Helicobacter pylori IgG were assessed in GPL cases, and the severity of intestinal metaplasia and gastric atrophy was scored by expert pathologists. Results: APCA positivity was observed in 18% of cases vs. 7% of controls (p = 0.033). Only 3/256 patients were previously diagnosed with AIG. The presence of APCA was associated with corpus-limited and extended GPL. A receiver operating curve analysis demonstrated that the G17 and PGI/II ratio could identify APCA-positive patients within GPL cases (AUC: 0.884). Conclusions: The prevalence of AIG is higher in patients with GPL but goes undiagnosed. Using G17 and PG I/II as diagnostic markers can help to identify patients with AIG and improve surveillance programs for patients with GPL.</p

Perioperative Chemotherapy for Gastro-Esophageal or Gastric Cancer:Anthracyclin Triplets versus FLOT

Background: The FLOT4-AIO trial (2019) showed improved survival with perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) compared to anthracyclin triplets in gastric cancer treatment. It is unclear whether these results extend to real-world scenarios in the Netherlands. This study aimed to compare outcomes of perioperative FLOT to anthracyclin triplets in a real-world Dutch gastric cancer population. Methods:Patients diagnosed with resectable (cT2-4a/cTxN0-3/NxM0) gastric or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma between 2015–2021 who received neoadjuvant FLOT or anthracyclin triplets were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), analyzed through multivariable Cox regression. Secondary outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR), neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycle completion, surgical resection rates, and adjuvant therapy. Results: Adjusted OS showed no significant survival benefit (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77–1.01, p = 0.07), even though the median OS was numerically improved by 8 months with FLOT compared to anthracyclin triplets (48.1 vs. 39.9 months, p = 0.16). FLOT patients were more likely to undergo diagnostic staging laparoscopies (74.2% vs. 44.1%, p &lt; 0.001), had higher rates of completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.09–1.68, p = 0.007), receiving adjuvant therapy (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.08–1.66, p = 0.08), and achieving pCR (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.05–2.20, p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed in (radical) resection rates. Conclusion(s): Real-world data showed no significant OS improvement for FLOT-treated patients compared to anthracyclin triplets, despite more staging laparoscopies. However, FLOT patients demonstrated higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy completion, proceeding to adjuvant therapy, and increased pCR rates. Therefore, we recommend the continued use of neoadjuvant FLOT therapy in the current clinical setting.</p

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence. 7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence. 8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6–9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Source and scop

Perioperative Chemotherapy for Gastro-Esophageal or Gastric Cancer:Anthracyclin Triplets versus FLOT

Background: The FLOT4-AIO trial (2019) showed improved survival with perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) compared to anthracyclin triplets in gastric cancer treatment. It is unclear whether these results extend to real-world scenarios in the Netherlands. This study aimed to compare outcomes of perioperative FLOT to anthracyclin triplets in a real-world Dutch gastric cancer population. Methods:Patients diagnosed with resectable (cT2-4a/cTxN0-3/NxM0) gastric or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma between 2015–2021 who received neoadjuvant FLOT or anthracyclin triplets were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), analyzed through multivariable Cox regression. Secondary outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR), neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycle completion, surgical resection rates, and adjuvant therapy. Results: Adjusted OS showed no significant survival benefit (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77–1.01, p = 0.07), even though the median OS was numerically improved by 8 months with FLOT compared to anthracyclin triplets (48.1 vs. 39.9 months, p = 0.16). FLOT patients were more likely to undergo diagnostic staging laparoscopies (74.2% vs. 44.1%, p &lt; 0.001), had higher rates of completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.09–1.68, p = 0.007), receiving adjuvant therapy (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.08–1.66, p = 0.08), and achieving pCR (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.05–2.20, p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed in (radical) resection rates. Conclusion(s): Real-world data showed no significant OS improvement for FLOT-treated patients compared to anthracyclin triplets, despite more staging laparoscopies. However, FLOT patients demonstrated higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy completion, proceeding to adjuvant therapy, and increased pCR rates. Therefore, we recommend the continued use of neoadjuvant FLOT therapy in the current clinical setting.</p

Induction chemotherapy followed by response evaluation and esophagectomy for advanced esophageal cancer

Introduction: Patients with limited metastatic/advanced esophageal cancer not amenable for neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery have a poor prognosis and often receive palliative care. Alternatively, induction chemotherapy with response evaluation can be considered and in some patients surgery with curative intent may become feasible. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with induction chemotherapy and to identify patient and/or tumor characteristics associated with survival. Material and methods: Patients with esophageal or junctional cancer who underwent induction chemotherapy between 2005 and 2021 were identified from an institutional database of a tertiary referral center. Response to therapy was assessed by (18F-FDG PET)/CT. Response to therapy and treatment options, including surgery or palliation, were discussed in the multidisciplinary tumor board. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival. Results: 238 patients were identified. The majority had esophageal adenocarcinoma (68.9 %) and were treated with a taxane/platinum-based chemotherapy (79.4 %). Response evaluation was performed in 233 patients and 154 of 238 patients (64.7 %) underwent surgical exploration. Resection was performed in 127 patients (53.4 %) resulting in a median and 5-year OS of 26.3 months (95 % CI 18.8–33.8) and 29.6 %, respectively. Presence of T4b (HR = 2.01, 95 % CI 1.02–3.92) and poorly differentiated tumor (HR = 1.45, 95 % CI 1.02–2.10) was associated with worse survival (p = 0.04). Conclusion: In carefully selected patients with advanced disease not amenable for standard curative treatment, induction chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy may result in a 5-year overall survival of approximately 30 %.</p

Substantial and sustained improvement of serrated polyp detection after a simple educational intervention: Results from a prospective controlled trial

Objective: Serrated polyps (SPs) are an important cause of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs), which is likely the result of suboptimal SP detection during colonoscopy. We assessed the long-term effect of a simple educational intervention focusing on optimising SP detection. Design: An educational intervention, consisting of two 45 min training sessions (held 3 years apart) on serrated polyp detection, was given to endoscopists from 9 Dutch hospitals. Hundred randomly selected and untrained endoscopists from other hospitals were selected as control group. Our primary outcome measure was the proximal SP detection rate (PSPDR) in trained versus untrained endoscopists who participated in our faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population screening programme. Results: Seventeen trained and 100 untrained endoscopists were included, who performed 11 305 and 51 039 colonoscopies, respectively. At baseline, PSPDR was equal between the groups (9.3% vs 9.3%). After training, the PSPDR of trained endoscopists gradually increased to 15.6% in 2018. This was significantly higher than the PSPDR of untrained endoscopists, which remained stable around 10% (p=0.018). All below-average (ie, PSPDR ≤6%) endoscopists at baseline improved their PSPDR after training session 1, as did 57% of endoscopists with average PSPDR (6%-12%) at baseline. The second training session further improved the PSPDR in 44% of endoscopists with average PSPDR after the first training. Conclusion: A simple educational intervention was associated with substantial long-term improvement of PSPDR in a prospective controlled trial within FIT-based population screening. Widespread implementation of such interventions might be an easy way to improve SP detection, which may ultimately result in fewer PCCRCs. Trial registration number: NCT03902899

Adjuvant Therapy for Patients with a Tumor-Positive Resection Margin After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND: Approximately 4-9% of patients have a tumor-positive resection margin after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and esophagectomy. Although it is associated with decreased survival, Western guidelines do not recommend adjuvant treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the proportion of patients who received adjuvant therapy, and to evaluate overall survival (OS) after esophagectomy in patients with a tumor-positive resection margin. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with resectable (cT2-4a/cTxN0-3/NxM0) esophageal cancer between 2015 and 2022, and treated with nCRT followed by irradical esophagectomy, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a tumor-positive resection margin who started adjuvant treatment ≤16 weeks after esophagectomy, including chemotherapy/radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or targeted therapy. OS was calculated from the date of surgery until the date of death or last day of follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 376 patients were included in our study, of whom 357 were treated with nCRT. Of these 357 patients, 98.3% had a microscopically irradical resection and 1.7% had a macroscopically irradical resection. Approximately 72.3% of tumors showed a partial response (Mandard 2-3) and 11.8% showed little/no pathological response (Mandard 4-5) to nCRT. One of 357 patients underwent adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 39 patients (61%) underwent adjuvant immunotherapy (nivolumab). The median and 5-year OS rate of all patients was 16.4 months (95% confidence interval 13.1-19.8) and 21%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Real-world population-level data showed that no patients with a tumor-positive resection margin underwent adjuvant therapy following nCRT and esophagectomy prior to 2021. Interestingly, 61% of patients were treated with adjuvant nivolumab in 2021-2022. OS after irradical esophagectomy is poor and long-term data will explore the added value of nivolumab